Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.orgNote: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To
ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500
words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail
address as you wish them to appear.]

He says some remarkable thingsWhat I took away from it could be summarized thusly:

"The Draft is Bad."

"Abortion is bad."

"Homosexuality is bad."

"Modern Pop Culture is bad, perhaps Satanist."

"Diversity is bad."

"Black Jack Pershing was good because he was extremely brutal." (Note, no sign of whether the "terrorists" he had slaughtered and defiled were *actually found guilty* of anything before being killed.)

"So we should [bomb? nuke?] Mecca."

I started out liking what Duggan had to say rethe 13th Amendment and the elites versus the rest of usBut then Duggan proceeds to "swallow the kool-aid" of the idiotic "good guys versus bad guys" mentality of the neo-con war propaganda.

How about this for a way to End the Jihad:

A) Every American every where can carry any weapon they want at any time, no permission needed (Even an Eskimo lesbian doctor who performs abortions in San Francisco).

B) Leave everyone else on the planet alone to mind their own business.

I guarantee in 20 years, the jihad against America would be as dim a memory as Clay Aikin.

As for the idiotic "Culture War" meme that underlies most of the 3-card Monty game of power in this countrythe Libertarian answer is simple.

If you want a community with conservative Christian values (no "Diversity", gay people or abortions) then go build one and leave everyone else alone. In time the facts will tell us which one works the best.

Ah, but then the Christian Right and the Progressive Left wouldn't have any fear to market to drive their political agendas.

We're totally serious as we don't wish libertarians to be the 21st Century's version
of the 19th Century's Dodo Bird or Sheep-Eaters.

> Just when I was beginning to think that there were at least a few men out
> there who realize that what's between a woman's ears is at least as
> important as what's between her legs, along comes a proposal to persuade us
> all to revert to being mere support systems for uteri.

The article was about generating children and not about sex. Indeed, the piece
stressed the importance of adopting children for those unwilling or unable to
conceive enough libertarians. BTW, Mormon women in greater Zion have
a higher percentage of college degrees than the national average.

You also seem to take an old-fashion (circa 1950's) viewpoint that women
are primarily responsible for child rearing. With libertarians that I know, the
raising of children is an equally shared blessing.

> Now, while I personally was only lukewarm about the idea of reproducing, I
> will admit that most of my fellow women probably do want to have children;
> but while I have known several women who were really enthusiastic about
> breeding, None of them wanted to spend their whole lives doing it, None of
> them wanted to do it to the exclusion of everything else in life, and (other
> than very religious women) none of them were inclined to have nine, ten,
> twelve, or more children just for the sake of an ideology, or for the sake
> of some thankless future generation.

Again, child rearing is a dual responsibity (if married or living with a partner)
and not just a female gig. Having many children is not a curse or even a burden
to most pronatal groups. Ask any Mormon family in Utah if they think they're
sad about having beautiful children around to help out and rapidly expanding their
value system.

The average white female in America has a life expectancy of 80 years and
a useful (desirable) "breeding" range between the age of 20 and 40/45. Thus,
a woman's "breeding" years compose only about 25% of life-expectancy. Again,
if this to too great of a burden, the family or single female should consider the
adoption option.

> Besides, as everyone knows, there is no guarantee that children will share
> their parents' ideology, no matter how wonderful or correct that ideology
> is--not even libertarianism in any of its manifestations. And pleasefor
> various reasons, I for one do not want to emulate the Mormons' example.

I used the Mormon model because they are the biggest winners in the cultural
and ideology wars in the real West. I could have used the Hutterites who now
have the highest birthrates in the West and the nation. Their birthrate remains
high as they have not yet won the ideology/philosophy debate in Montana as the
Mormon's have done in greater Zion (so they can now afford to lower their birthrate).

I must admit, that I have never before heard that having many children "is...not
even libertarian..."and I can't seem to locate the source of that belief (it certainly
wasn't Thomas Jefferson...at least six children). No one is mandating that libertarians
have numerous children. It is only a suggestion, kind of like signing on to the ZAP
principle, that may prevent the extinction or at least the increasing irrelevancy of
libertarians and our ideas.

Another great thing about the LDS is that they collect data on everything related to
themselves (the winners). The Saints estimate that 91% of children remain Mormon
until they die. That's also a nice percentage for libertarians to emulate. However, even
that positive LDS statistic underestimates the Mormon impact. I've known many ex or
Jack-Mormons that totally trashed Mormons and everything about the Saints. At least
15% of Idaho's IDLP, including the late "libertarian" Larry Fulmer (the father of the LP in
Idaho) are Jack-Mormons. However, all ex-Mormons I know still demonstrate many traditional
LDS values. I'm sure that most libertarian children, of the few that may stray into non-liberty
ideas, will still carry many strongly libertarian values and traits.

> Further, even if you could convince every last semi-libertarian-minded woman
> on earth to have a dozen children, where in the hell would you find the
> libertarian men to support such a tribe? Most libertarian men I've ever
> meteven those who actually wanted childrenhad trouble supporting
> themselves, much less a wife and a huge brood of children.

I really don't think that libertarians are less industrious or poorer than Mormons,
Hutterites, or Hmongs (the three greatest procreationist cultures in Montana).
Libertarian men will have to change with the times and need, or else end up as
a footnote in an anthropological journal of failed societies, just like the extinct
Sheep-Eaters.

Part of the problem is urbanization and the East, for people there usually have few
or no children (except Orthodox Jews). In rural Montana, working on a ranch or farm
(at least part-time), children are necessary to have a successful operation. Indeed,
rancher/farmers that don't have many children, often go broke in paying hired-hands.
The paradigm proposed assumes that libertarians will move to Montana (or Idaho and
Wyoming) and live in rural areas where numerous children are needed and appreciated.

> Finally, it's nobody else's business how many children I choose to haveor
> whether I choose to have none at allas long as I support and nurture them
> without picking your pocket via either private criminal activity (i.e.,
> freelance muggers) or via state-sanctioned criminal activity (i.e.,
> government handout programs).

Again, there's no mandate in out suggested paradigm to save libertarianism.
It was an attempt to get libertarians to think out of the box and possibly
become winners politically, culturally, and demographically.

> I seem to recall, having read Ayn Rand's magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged,
> several times over the years, that the Galt's Gulchers took the following
> oath:
>
> I swear by my life
> And my love of it
> That I will never live
> For the sake of another man
> Nor ask another man
> To live for mine.
>
> And guess what? Although I well remember being awestruck by the sheer power
> of Miss Rand's writing when I first read her works, I never once got the
> impression that the above oath, or the self-ownership it makes explicit,
> applied only to men.

I think Galt's Gulchers lived in the real West. People live in the world
that they generate, and if an individual, group or culture fails to convert others
to their values and is not even generating children at a replacement level (2.1
rate...libertarian have about a 1.3 rate), they are on a one-way road to extinction,
and will eventually join the ranks of past failed groups (Sheep-Eaters et al.).

BTW, I'm the parent of ten children (both naturally and by adoption) that are now all adults
and libertarians. During many of my child-rearing years, I was also a single parent. I
never got rich but was never poor, and indeed libertarianism and myself are all the richer for
my efforts.

I had to chuckle a bit at your challenge to Butler Shaffer re. supplying/suggesting a fix for the current mess of western civilization (The Libertarian Enterprise Number 329, July 24, 2005). He and Lew Rockwell were mildly rebuked by Paul Wakfer this past March for the same type of writingcolumn after column of examples of individual freedom lost through government intervention, but nothing even moderately substantive regarding possible solutions.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-nation/message/2166

Paul (with my editing assistance) is still at work refining the Natural Social Contractthe minimal framework for a self-ordered society operating under the principles of his Social Meta-Needs theory . As he replied to Butler's and Lew's two challenges for a "plan", the current versions in the meantime provide a good idea of what he is proposing. As a mathematician and scientist by formal training and philosopher by interest, Paul is foundational, consistent and thorough in his writing. He has spent years developing his ideas, starting from the same egoistic basis as Ayn Rand, and delineates in the above referred essay the philosophical basis for and the derivation of a social framework that provides a naturally ordered (not "spontaneous", as you also questioned the reality of that happeningif it was going to why hasn't it already?), maximally free, minimally restrictive society of maximally happy and productive Self-Sovereign Individuals. Once you have read and deeply considered the new concepts presented, your public comments and questions would be most welcome at MoreLife Yahoo (where a fair amount of related discussion is taking placeor any other public forum of your choice) where others can benefit from the discussion (archives viewable by anyone and searchable). In fact, I am copying this message to the Editor of The Libertarian Enterprise (and also to Tom Knapp's RRND from where I followed the link to your article) for inclusion online, rather than simply sending as an email to you, so that the existence of a "plan" in the works is further made known to others.

Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rationalhttp://morelife.orgReality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Projecthttp://selfsip.orgRational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting

Washington, DC (July 28, 2005). Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, president of the
Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI), a Washington, DC area Islamic
policy research institute, today hailed the fatwa against terrorism
and extremist violence issued by the Fiqh Council of North America
(FCNA). "For years we have been explaining the reasons that Islam
opposes violence against civilians and bemoaning the lack of coverage
of the official denunciations of such acts of violence as the 9/11
attack on the World Trade Center issued by countless Muslim
organizations," Dr. Ahmad stated. "We can only pray that this fatwa
issued by a body of recognized scholars in the West will make it
clear that Islam is opposed to terrorism," he added.

Dr. Ahmad criticized both inflammatory demagogues who have asserted
that Islam promotes violence and Muslim apologists whose defense of
Islam as a peaceful religion has given the impression that Muslims
try to pretend their religion is pacifist. "The overwhelming concern
of the holy book of Islam, the Qur'an," Dr. Ahmad said, "is justice.
Killing is prohibited in Islam except as punishment for murder or for
terrorism (called hirābah in Arabic). Even in a state of war,
non-combatants are not to be targeted. Islam had a theory of just war
before it was developed in the Western world. It is our hope that this
denunciation will prevent the seduction of our youth into unIslamic
responses to injustices against Muslims."

The Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI) is dedicated to research and
educational efforts regarding Islamic law and Muslim history.

Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad
http://www.minaret.org"The mission of the Minaret of Freedom Institute is to educate Muslims
on the importance of liberty and free markets to a good society, while
educating non-Muslims about the beliefs and contributions of Islam and
the political realities of conflict between the two cultures"